I would like to understand more about your product. Does it ensure the accuracy of your resume? I.e that you really did work for Google since 2020? Or is it more to simply ensure that the content has not changed. But if so, who cares if your resume has changed?
> When the owner of a resume decides to create a blockchain resume, Rezi makes an encrypted record of: issuer, recipient, resume, date of creation. These pieces of data are encrypted right onto the blockchain. This means that every blockchain resume is incredibly secure.
This is the first step we've taken towards the bigger goal of ensuring truthfulness of the experiences on the resume.
But for now, it does two things - ensures the resume has not been altered since created (think recruiter's incentives to do so) and serves as a promise from the job seeker that the resume is truthful.
We're just launching, so let's see how it evolves over time
>ensures the resume has not been altered since created (think recruiter's incentives to do so)
How often do recruiters actually modify your PDF resume after you submit it? Why would they do that when the company can just verify its contents on LinkedIn? Do you actually have any kind of data on this?
And if you're actually worried about rogue recruiters modifying your resume after you make it, why would you not sign your PDF?
>serves as a promise from the job seeker that the resume is truthful.
Because it's on the blockchain it's not bullshit?
This is quite honestly one of the dumber product pitches I have heard in a while. It sounds like you just pulled a word out of the hat to figure out what to blockchainify next.
I still don't get it - when you give your resume to a recruiter they can rework it as they see fit, but they can't change your original. That's on your hard drive/wherever. What does Blockchain add to that?
And as to a promise that the resume is truthful - thats just your assurance, what does block chain have to do with that either?
Asking with genuine interest as we are in the HR space so often discussing these sort of things.
> That's on your hard drive/wherever. What does Blockchain add to that?
Whomever is responsible for hiring can instantly and independently verify the authenticity of the resume without the friction of communicating with the applicant.
> And as to a promise that the resume is truthful - thats just your assurance, what does block chain have to do with that either?
We've seen lying on the resume as a huge problem that we haven't been able to tackle. Perhaps making a record of this assurance will discourage job seekers from lying.
> Whomever is responsible for hiring can instantly and independently verify the authenticity of the resume without the friction of communicating with the applicant.
How does whoever is responsible for hiring know to look for it on the blockchain? I have a blockchain verified resume, the recruiter exports it to PDF and modifies it, and erases any words about the blockchain from that copy. If the hiring manager is going to go looking somewhere else to check if it's on the blockchain, they can already just look at my website or my LinkedIn.
> serves as a promise from the job seeker that the resume is truthful.
Isn’t that sort of implied when someone gives you a resume?
Have you noticed a lot of job applicants saying things like “that pdf I gave you? Total bullshit, I made it all up. But this? This is real, because blockchain!”?
Also, do you even store the resume on the blockchain, or do you just store a url? If the latter, what happens when the original owner of the dns name sells it to someone else who replaces your “blockchain verified” resume with goatse?
Unfortunately lying on a resume remains a huge problem that has been left untouched. We've lead innovation in the space of resume software for the past couple of years now, so adding this download option is a step towards the solution.
Like how chess computers have changed how humans play chess, the recursive GPT-3 + marking gobbledygook feedback loop has made humans who write like computers. I cant tell if the post im replying to is a person being serious, a computer being serious, a person being a troll, or a computer emulating trolls. Or a cyborg hybrid of all the above.
The whole post reads extremely formulaic.
Repeat what what was just said -> "Unfortunately lying on a resume remains a huge problem that has been left untouched."
Made up claim of leadership in a non existent field -> "We've lead innovation in the space of resume software for the past couple of years now"
Future promise to keep attention, or claim of something new that is identical to old -> "so adding this download option is a step towards the solution"
You just need bog-standard ancient cryptographic signatures for that. Aside from bockchain-hype, what value does using a blockchain bring to the table?
What does this protect against? Nothing too bad has happened to me so far with my non-blockchain PDFs. From the site copy it seems to say I can just verify that it was uploaded at a certain time. Why does that matter?
I agree with you, I've never had issues with my non-blockchain PDF, but having the option to put a resume on the blockchain is something that the majority of our users responded they'd like to be able to do. Ultimately it's a small part of our software, but it does allow users to prove they are the one who created the resume originally. The value of this is yet to be determined.
Fyi I can sign my pdf resume with my national id card with a legally binding digital signature. This provides all the same guarantees, without using a third party blockchain-based service.
> You have no idea how your career goals are related to the job you want
I don't know whether an employer can help me meet my own career goals, but an AI does? And somehow the blockchain factors into this? This is one of the more patronizing startups I've ever seen.
Cleaned up that lazy copy-writing. Thanks for that. We use GPT-3 to write content following best practices. I am sure you understood that much from the website.
Blockchain verified resume is one of four download types along with PDF, DOCX, Drive. Not a huge component of the software by any stretch of the imagination.
> Thankfully, a number of crypto exchanges have started natively supporting Layer 2 withdrawals, meaning you can send your funds straight from the exchange to the L2 of your choice.
What is the point of going back to centralized crypto exchanges once again, just to move, swap your cryptocurrencies and then bringing up the argument of decentralization? Decentralized exchanges like Uniswap were supposed to make it possible to get rid of the reliance on centralized exchanges. But even using that or similar decentralized exchanges, the gas fees are still high.
This post is enough to put off any cryptocurrency-skeptic who would be wondering if they can ever use Ethereum to pay for their groceries at the local supermarket.
I guess after reading the mentioned beta contraptions, multiple steps, still expensive gas fees and the coins and layers you need to know just to 'use it' gives the TL;DR of:
Nope, It is not ready and I cannot use it. So I will wait.
Please don't post generic flamewar comments to HN. It leads to generic flamewar hell, which is just what we don't want here.
Needless to say, that has nothing to do with how right you are, or feel you are, about the underlying topic. It has to do with comment quality. We want to avoid the worst sort of internet comments and most of all the sort that evoke predictable flamewars. (Cryptocurrency flamewars are probably the most predictable of all, these days—it's one big endless same thing.)
If you don't have something curious and thoughtful to say, not posting is a good alternative. If you don't find one thread stimulating of your intellectual curiosity, there are plenty of others to look at.
I don't really get why we have a thousand coins trying to solve the same problem that Bitcoin Cash solved in 2017. (Or, in 2009, if you accept that BCH is the same formula as original Bitcoin, and that it is Bitcoin Core that changed its design. They share the same history.)
If you want cheap transactions, for actual cash-like usage rather than a "settlement layer", you need big blocks. It is not rocket science.
Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash's scripting capabilities aren't comparable to Ethereum's smart contracts. Making Ethereum transactions cheaper is a different and more complex problem.
all of these chains that are described in the article are EVM-compatible and allow running ethereum smart contracts
for example the uniswap contracts can be deployed on arbitrum. users can then swap coins on the arbitrum blockchain rather than ethereum and therefore save gas costs
A transaction incurs one-time electricity costs for the miner, but also permanent storage costs for miners (who must have a full blockchain copy).
For a miner, currently the latter is negligible. Increasing block size implies more storage space needed, which would push amateur miners out, making Bitcoin less decentralized than now[0]. Over time, the storage costs will become massive. This is why block sizes have stayed relatively low.
One reason I'm bearish on Bitcoin is that it's absurd that a one-time fee allows you to essentially have a permanent public billboard. For example, people have posted links to illegal content on the blockchain that is essentially unremovable[1].
With Bitcoin, the miners can be expected to pay for large ASIC mining rigs, but can't be expected to pay for a couple of TB (for 10x increase) of extra storage every year?
The miners aren't the only ones who need to store the blockchain. If you don't run your own node, you are trusting someone else to tell you your balance and whether or not someone has paid you which is..not ideal.
Why use L2 when one can have a better experience with much lower fees (Solana, Avalance, Flow & Near). The new generation Blockchains like Solana and Avalance are far better than Ethereum. They are going throgh some growing pains, other wise, they beat Ethereum to dust in terms of speed, latency and performance. Solana takes a second to confirm a transaction, with 0.00025$ fees and can support more than 100,000 tx/s. While Ethereum take a minute to confirm a transaction and cost about 100$ and can only process about 15 tx/s. Also, Ethereum is about 1000 times more energy hungry than Solana.
If you scale up Avalanche's fees to ETH's market cap, the fees are essentially the same.
The low fees on Solana make it more prone to spam. The entire chain was down for 17 hours in September and has recently been facing some major congestion issues.
There's no silver bullet here and I think we should be honest about the capabilities and tradeoffs of each approach to scaling.
Solana and Avalanche are fantastic L1s, and I am optimistic for their future. But I'm skeptical of their ability to replace Ethereum.
To Solana's credit, they opted to create their own smart contract VM based on Rust, rather than build an EVM-compatible VM. It will take them time to get developer mindshare, but there's a real possibility to build dApps on Solana that couldn't exist on Solana. The same is true in some ways for Avalanche, but I think their current EVM-compatible C-chain means most developers will spend their time porting existing Solidity-based dApps, rather than build something new or novel. Look at Fantom and its DAG-based blockchain.
Having used Arbitrum, Boba, and Optimism, I can say that they're very fast and work very well. How they handle load as we scale up remains to be seen.
I still have to spend time with the zkRollup L2s; sad to see that StarkNet gets mentioned before Loopring. Polygon's investment into the space is interesting too.
To me, lower fees are irrelevant if there are no dApps to use, and low liquidity. I'm an avid user of a very promising dApp on Arbitrum that has done very well since launching in August. However, they're looking to launch on Avalanche now due to the low liquidity and uptake on Arbitrum.
What that also tells me is that momentum matters. And right now, Ethereum has got it. You won't be bridging your NFTs from Ethereum into Solana anytime soon. But on the L2s? Yeah, probably.
> To Solana's credit, they opted to create their own smart contract VM based on Rust, rather than build an EVM-compatible VM. It will take them time to get developer mindshare, but there's a real possibility to build dApps on Solana that couldn't exist on Solana.
Good point. What are your thoughts on Cardano, Algorand and Tezos?
Interesting points about AVAX's C-chain and Fantom as well. I have a friend who did a project on Fantom due to lower gas fees and it also being EVM compatible, but yeah, it's using Solidity.
Also, just wondering, do you agree with this quote from the article?
> What most people don’t know is: Gas fees on Ethereum are supposed to be high. The goal for Etheruem is not to be the chain most consumers transact on. It’s to be the settlement layer for a number of other chains sitting on top of it, which can run much faster and much cheaper, because they’re backed by Ethereum’s security and infrastructure. In other words: the consensus layer for a variety of networks.
I'd also be curious to hear once you have time to look into zkRollup L2's.
These other chains don't beat Ethereum in terms of decentralization and uptime. It tells you a lot about the tradeoffs made when Solana has gone down several times in the past few months and the solution is for all the validators to get together and collectively 'restart' the network.
Ethereum has proven that many dont care about decentralization in the short term, so ETH will be forked to death over the coming years to achieve lower fees and high throughput instead.
This is all at the sacrifice of decentralization zkrollups and zkporter (one roll up solution) will eventually be able to handle transactions at that clip while being decentralized. The energy consumption point is incorrect as moving to proof of stake Ethereum will be using a fraction of the energy it uses today, however at the cost of capital concentration in the hands of validators which I actually see as a negative for all of these proof of stake blockchains.
I think the scariest thing that people think of and I originally thought when I heard Ethereum will scale with "Layer 2's" is you are sending your money to a blockchain you do not have the keys to do not actually control the funds. The layer 2 scaling solutions will seamlessly interoperate with the current dapps that will be ported over looking seemless for users. You are essentially holding your capital in a contract you can call on at anytime and retrieve to the settlement layer (Ethereum layer 1).
These are the trade off imo and do not make either system better. I just prefer decentralization if I'm holding capital on a blockchain for an extended period of time.
What makes you think Solana is Centralized? It runs over 2000 nodes. The number is currently is less than that of Ethereum node count, as the demand is less.
It also would be a fair comparison to compare what is existing today. So, please don't say that Ethereum 2.0 will be far more efficient. By that time Solana would have made great strides too. So, let's compare what is existing today. Ethereum 2.0 is being touted for several years and still not ready. We can compare Ethereum 2.0, when it's ready and there, but not now.
It has 1200 validators, compared to 260,000 on Ethereum, and it's basically impossible for anyone to run a node at home because it requires 300Mbps+ internet connection to run one.
The problem with this you can't yourself verify what is happening on the chain, you have to trust that the node operators are acting in good faith and not censoring transactions or forming cartels to manipulate history.
This is ok if you only have a small amount of money or are using it for games or something that doesn't really matter. But it'll never be able to run the global financial system or store things of large value.
The connection bandwidth, and to a lesser extent the computer hardware, push validators to run in data centers. The reliable fat bandwidth is a big requirement which drives centralization.
If most Solana validators run on AWS, then it is as centralized as the AWS datacenters. I think they have 50+ facilities now.
I only have experience with Flow, but it's not decentralized. The developers claim it is, but they hold master keys to remove contracts from the chain.
> The new generation Blockchains like Solana and Avalance are far better than Ethereum.
There is only one metric that matters and that's users on your platform. I like Solana and am somewhat neutral on Avalanche but they just dno't have the users, or developers or ecosystem that Eth has.
If they were truly better then they'd be winning. So far the users have voted with their dollars and developers have voted with their time and claimed Eth is better.
I hold alot of SOL, but atleast ETH is decentralized. SOL is very much centralized both in terms of ownership and in terms of nodes.
I mean, they managed to get all nodes to shutdown in a coordinated manner a month ago. I was fine shutting my node down but it was strange that all node owners could get together in a discord group and make that decisions in under an hour.
Did you even read the article? This kind of misunderstand is exactly what it's addressing. L2's give instant confirmation, process 1000+ TPS, and cost far less than the L1 (ZK Rollups being a couple of cents per transaction), AND they are insanely more secure than Solana.
Solana is ok for now if you don't care about decentralization, but it barely handles more than a few thousand TPS without falling over or having degraded performance (as has happened twice in the last week!), and it can't scale much further with it's current structure.
A rollup centric system can scale to 14 million TPS by 2030 once a few core pieces of tech are released (see https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-da...) on similar hardware to what Ethereum is running today (raspberry Pi's of 2030)
I like Solana but it has gone down several times. Not totally an apples to apples comparison to ETH, which I don't think has ever gone down (someone please reply if that is incorrect). ETH did need to be forked, but that's a different story.
Avalanche does seem promising. I like their concept of multiple chains: Exchange Chain (X-Chain), Platform Chain (P-Chain), and Contract Chain (C-Chain) [1].
Isn’t a low number of transactions per second essentially built in to the original ETH spec? If so, surely it’s likely that each transaction should be expensive?
Yes, but that's just because a design goal is for modest computers to be able to fully participate in the protocol, and the low number of transactions was the best they could do. They've also been planning to scale since early days. Here are some of Vitalik's blog posts on scaling back in 2014:
And here's one of his 2021 posts, in which he talks about the importance of regular users being able to run a node, but says a million tx/sec should be achievable:
If I remember correctly, L1 ETH can handle ~13 transactions per second. Meanwhile L1 Bitcoin can handle ~4 transactions per second. At the time it was introduced, one of Ethereum's selling points was that it was able to handle 3x more transactions per second than Bitcoin, IIRC.
300% more is usually considered a good upgrade for most things (Apple is touting a whopping 20% speed increase on their latest iPad, for example). It's just that six years is a long time in this space and they've learned how to make things a lot faster since.
Doesn't this just make on-boarding users even more convoluted? You'll have to probably get a large amount of Ether and then 'commit' it to another L2 to receive whatever their backed token equivalent is. Then you'll use this token to pay for things which will have no network effect, apps, or merchants in the beginning. Basically all adoption goes back to square one while providing a confusing and worse user-experience for everyone. How are wallets supposed to explain this shit to users?
You're right, it sucks in the short term. The way I look at ethereum/defi is that we're interacting with the protocol directly right now. Imagine if you could only use your bank by working directly with the API, and then some people hacked together crude tools to make the API more tolerable.
Over time this will all be abstracted away and typical users won't have to worry how it's all working underneath (unless they really want to).
So once again, Ethereum users relying on centralized exchanges to bring the gas fees down (when the steps involved confuses users and the fees are still high).
Given that being the case, the general decentralization argument would be pointless. For the many users who need to be able to pay for their groceries quickly, you might as well use Solana then, since everyone needs to eat.
The whole point of Uniswap is to move away from these centralized exchanges. Perhaps using that has gotten more complicated to use or the swaps have also gotten too expensive even if it is on an L2; making that useless as well?
Arbitrum doesn't require you to use a centralized exchange, it's just easier to onboard with "fiat -> centralized exchange -> arbitrum" than "fiat -> centralized exchange -> ethereum -> arbitrum".
Even if you can withdraw straight to L2s, the main problem I have with this scaling solution is it is too convoluted. I have no faith in being able to explain this to people who aren't already crypto enthusiasts. It seems much easier to explain how to use a single scalable L1 than to explain a cluster of ever growing L2s and sidechains. I know there is a lot of work in the ecosystem but really this has to be masked hard with a fantastic web wallet UI if it has any hopes of widescale and longterm adoption imo. This is why I have more hope currently for Solana than Ethereum.
It's an incredibly complicated problem that is currently being worked on by ETH developers. However eventually this will be seemless for an average user. You can be using Uniswap for example on an L2 like arbitrum or zksync and have no idea your ETH is even there. Also ramps are being built to directly deposit into L2. The gas fees from bridging in and out of L2 will be solved when the majority of the traffic is happening on L2, the ETH L1 blockchain will only be used as a settlement layer for L2 traffic and much fewer transactions. Sharding which is coming will also bring down fees a ton for all settlement transactions in ETH L1.
May I ask what is probably a stupid question? What about Phantom.app as a wallet for a noob? I am leaning towards ETH, but all of the wallets looks exceedingly complicated...except for this one.
Phantom wallet is great! It's currently primary a solana wallet, but I believe that they are in beta for Ethereum support, but if you are curious to try out web3 stuff Solana is great for it. I strongly prefer the UI over this wallet compared to Metamask for instance, and think it is a very user friendly wallet.
Most of them use ETH as their currency, but even if they have their own token once exchanges have direct withdrawls to them, and they have most apps, they'll feel the same as using any other L1.
We're still very much in the early days of this though, having to move between chains manually. There are bridges that allow executing contracts on other networks, and eventually apps will abstract the different layers away from users using technology like this.
> What most people don’t know is: Gas fees on Ethereum are supposed to be high.
Count me among those not in the know!
I...really don't get it.
Bitcoin was supposed to be a currency. Then we realized that it's too slow and too energy-hungry for that. So we retcon'ed it into, it's a store of value!
Etherium was supposed to be a place for smart contracts. Then we realized it's too slow and gas-hungry for that. So...we retcon'ed it, too?
Think of Ethereum instead as the tamper-proof store for the audit log of the history of all smart contracts in the world. While in the early days you could just transact on that, it doesn't scale if everyone's trying to "write to disk" for every single transaction all at once. So the article, and the companion piece by the same author at https://every.to/almanack/defriday-2-polygon-s-surge-ethereu... describe ways to have other, more lightweight chains that periodically flush their changes to the Ethereum chain. It's elegant, and as with all things cryptocurrency, just requires people to believe that running validator and miner nodes is worth it.
The thing off-chain is itself a blockchain, with miners incentivized to work in good faith. I imagine, though haven’t verified, that ensuring the right consensus is committed to ETH can be figured out with mutual staking orchestrated via smart contracts on both ends.
I am amused by the mental gymnastics deployed by Ethereum holders such as "It was meant to have high fees", or "High fees keep it decentralized". Guess what, BitTorrent is decentralized they charge nothing. It's okay to admit that you made a wrong investment / choice and pick another option, you can always change mind and pick a better option (I will not recommend or shill any one of them here).
...and look at the sea of unseeded torrents, basically all that is older than a few weeks and not backed by some paid/autseeded tracker or devout datahoarder (not defending Ethereum's approach here though).
Except, there's not really a clear signal of "Hey, a bunch of people want this!" unless they all just hop on the torrent and hope for a seeder to join. If I go to a store and they don't have bread, I'm not waiting for their next bread delivery for them to stock the aisles...
Is comparing Ethereum costs to BitTorrent costs reasonable? They are both decentralized, but they do completely different things.
It seems it would be like if I compared the price of gasoline ($3.80/gallon here) to the price of water ($0.00018/gallon if I use a lot, 25% less if I use an ordinary amount) and said this shows that gasoline is way overpriced because they are both liquids.
Why is nobody talking about IOTA?! 7 years of development on feeless smart contract development and tangible results bolstered with robust private and public partnerships. Germany is bullish on IOTA
> What most people don’t know is: Gas fees on Ethereum are supposed to be high. The goal for Etheruem is not to be the chain most consumers transact on. It’s to be the settlement layer for a number of other chains sitting on top of it, which can run much faster and much cheaper, because they’re backed by Ethereum’s security and infrastructure. In other words: the consensus layer for a variety of networks.
Is there is source where Vitalik states this? Is this was the case then why bother creating Eth2?
Almost certainly not. Here's a video[1] from at least back in 2017 where he's criticizing bitcoin for having fees of 5 cents per transaction and saying 'The internet of money should not cost 5 cents per transaction, that's absurd.'
Also here's a more recent tweet from him in July 2020 that says the high gas fees are risking making Ethereum even LESS secure[2].
Also here's his response to someone mentioning his initial quote about 5 cents per transaction and accusing Vitalik that he has since become more accepting of higher transaction fees:
"Wait what? Why do you think half the ecosystem is working nonstop on rollups and eth2?"[3]
I think it's safe to assume that Vitalik does not share the opinion of the linked article that Ethereum is intended to have high fees or that it helps security by having those high fees.
ETH2 is where Ethereum goes from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake and as a result uses 99% less electricity.
The second phase of ETH2 is sharding where instead of Ethereum being one big chain it has one execution chain and 64 additional data shards. This makes it scale incredibly well when it's a settlement layer for rollups (up to 14 million TPS with 1024 shards - See https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-da...)
Yes and the point there isn't so much that on-chain transactions are "supposed to be expensive," but that zkrollups are just as secure as on-chain transactions but scale an order of magnitude better than executable shards, so executable shards start to look a little superfluous.
The researchers have floated the possibility of incorporating zkrollup tech into L1 eventually, but with the tech advancing so quickly it's hard to say whether it will ultimately make sense.
I really resonate with Nat's DeFi articles. If you're wondering "What are blockchains even useful for" I highly urge you to look at his other articles on the Almanack. He does deep dive's into all the interesting DeFi products, and almost all are products that are not possible without a blockchain.
108 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] threadhttps://www.rezi.ai/rezi-blockchain-verified-resume
> When the owner of a resume decides to create a blockchain resume, Rezi makes an encrypted record of: issuer, recipient, resume, date of creation. These pieces of data are encrypted right onto the blockchain. This means that every blockchain resume is incredibly secure.
Secure from what?
But for now, it does two things - ensures the resume has not been altered since created (think recruiter's incentives to do so) and serves as a promise from the job seeker that the resume is truthful.
We're just launching, so let's see how it evolves over time
How often do recruiters actually modify your PDF resume after you submit it? Why would they do that when the company can just verify its contents on LinkedIn? Do you actually have any kind of data on this?
And if you're actually worried about rogue recruiters modifying your resume after you make it, why would you not sign your PDF?
>serves as a promise from the job seeker that the resume is truthful.
Because it's on the blockchain it's not bullshit?
This is quite honestly one of the dumber product pitches I have heard in a while. It sounds like you just pulled a word out of the hat to figure out what to blockchainify next.
The feature comes from asking our users what they'd like to see improved on our existing software.
The topics of trust/authenticity have been left unexplored in relation to the resume. We'll gladly be the first.
And as to a promise that the resume is truthful - thats just your assurance, what does block chain have to do with that either?
Asking with genuine interest as we are in the HR space so often discussing these sort of things.
Whomever is responsible for hiring can instantly and independently verify the authenticity of the resume without the friction of communicating with the applicant.
> And as to a promise that the resume is truthful - thats just your assurance, what does block chain have to do with that either?
We've seen lying on the resume as a huge problem that we haven't been able to tackle. Perhaps making a record of this assurance will discourage job seekers from lying.
How does whoever is responsible for hiring know to look for it on the blockchain? I have a blockchain verified resume, the recruiter exports it to PDF and modifies it, and erases any words about the blockchain from that copy. If the hiring manager is going to go looking somewhere else to check if it's on the blockchain, they can already just look at my website or my LinkedIn.
Isn’t that sort of implied when someone gives you a resume?
Have you noticed a lot of job applicants saying things like “that pdf I gave you? Total bullshit, I made it all up. But this? This is real, because blockchain!”?
Also, do you even store the resume on the blockchain, or do you just store a url? If the latter, what happens when the original owner of the dns name sells it to someone else who replaces your “blockchain verified” resume with goatse?
Unfortunately lying on a resume remains a huge problem that has been left untouched. We've lead innovation in the space of resume software for the past couple of years now, so adding this download option is a step towards the solution.
The whole post reads extremely formulaic.
Repeat what what was just said -> "Unfortunately lying on a resume remains a huge problem that has been left untouched."
Made up claim of leadership in a non existent field -> "We've lead innovation in the space of resume software for the past couple of years now"
Future promise to keep attention, or claim of something new that is identical to old -> "so adding this download option is a step towards the solution"
= no
It would also allow the hiring manager to instantly and independently verify that the resume has not been altered by anyone accept you.
It does not verify claims of your experiences - that is a messier endeavor.
I don't know whether an employer can help me meet my own career goals, but an AI does? And somehow the blockchain factors into this? This is one of the more patronizing startups I've ever seen.
Blockchain verified resume is one of four download types along with PDF, DOCX, Drive. Not a huge component of the software by any stretch of the imagination.
The software is quite nice, no patronizing here.
Sadly I cannot tell if this entire subthread is actually a joke or not, but if it is, it's a pretty good one.
What is the point of going back to centralized crypto exchanges once again, just to move, swap your cryptocurrencies and then bringing up the argument of decentralization? Decentralized exchanges like Uniswap were supposed to make it possible to get rid of the reliance on centralized exchanges. But even using that or similar decentralized exchanges, the gas fees are still high.
This post is enough to put off any cryptocurrency-skeptic who would be wondering if they can ever use Ethereum to pay for their groceries at the local supermarket.
I guess after reading the mentioned beta contraptions, multiple steps, still expensive gas fees and the coins and layers you need to know just to 'use it' gives the TL;DR of:
before: ETH fees needs to be cheap (remember the bitcoin fees and eth wanted fees to belower?), now: ETH fees was meant to be high!
before: we need to get away from centralized exchanges for decentralization now: we need centralized exchanges
crazy.
Needless to say, that has nothing to do with how right you are, or feel you are, about the underlying topic. It has to do with comment quality. We want to avoid the worst sort of internet comments and most of all the sort that evoke predictable flamewars. (Cryptocurrency flamewars are probably the most predictable of all, these days—it's one big endless same thing.)
If you don't have something curious and thoughtful to say, not posting is a good alternative. If you don't find one thread stimulating of your intellectual curiosity, there are plenty of others to look at.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you want cheap transactions, for actual cash-like usage rather than a "settlement layer", you need big blocks. It is not rocket science.
for example the uniswap contracts can be deployed on arbitrum. users can then swap coins on the arbitrum blockchain rather than ethereum and therefore save gas costs
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
For a miner, currently the latter is negligible. Increasing block size implies more storage space needed, which would push amateur miners out, making Bitcoin less decentralized than now[0]. Over time, the storage costs will become massive. This is why block sizes have stayed relatively low.
One reason I'm bearish on Bitcoin is that it's absurd that a one-time fee allows you to essentially have a permanent public billboard. For example, people have posted links to illegal content on the blockchain that is essentially unremovable[1].
[0]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/829.pdf
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268
The low fees on Solana make it more prone to spam. The entire chain was down for 17 hours in September and has recently been facing some major congestion issues.
There's no silver bullet here and I think we should be honest about the capabilities and tradeoffs of each approach to scaling.
To Solana's credit, they opted to create their own smart contract VM based on Rust, rather than build an EVM-compatible VM. It will take them time to get developer mindshare, but there's a real possibility to build dApps on Solana that couldn't exist on Solana. The same is true in some ways for Avalanche, but I think their current EVM-compatible C-chain means most developers will spend their time porting existing Solidity-based dApps, rather than build something new or novel. Look at Fantom and its DAG-based blockchain.
Having used Arbitrum, Boba, and Optimism, I can say that they're very fast and work very well. How they handle load as we scale up remains to be seen.
I still have to spend time with the zkRollup L2s; sad to see that StarkNet gets mentioned before Loopring. Polygon's investment into the space is interesting too.
To me, lower fees are irrelevant if there are no dApps to use, and low liquidity. I'm an avid user of a very promising dApp on Arbitrum that has done very well since launching in August. However, they're looking to launch on Avalanche now due to the low liquidity and uptake on Arbitrum.
What that also tells me is that momentum matters. And right now, Ethereum has got it. You won't be bridging your NFTs from Ethereum into Solana anytime soon. But on the L2s? Yeah, probably.
Good point. What are your thoughts on Cardano, Algorand and Tezos?
Interesting points about AVAX's C-chain and Fantom as well. I have a friend who did a project on Fantom due to lower gas fees and it also being EVM compatible, but yeah, it's using Solidity.
Also, just wondering, do you agree with this quote from the article?
> What most people don’t know is: Gas fees on Ethereum are supposed to be high. The goal for Etheruem is not to be the chain most consumers transact on. It’s to be the settlement layer for a number of other chains sitting on top of it, which can run much faster and much cheaper, because they’re backed by Ethereum’s security and infrastructure. In other words: the consensus layer for a variety of networks.
I'd also be curious to hear once you have time to look into zkRollup L2's.
I think the scariest thing that people think of and I originally thought when I heard Ethereum will scale with "Layer 2's" is you are sending your money to a blockchain you do not have the keys to do not actually control the funds. The layer 2 scaling solutions will seamlessly interoperate with the current dapps that will be ported over looking seemless for users. You are essentially holding your capital in a contract you can call on at anytime and retrieve to the settlement layer (Ethereum layer 1).
These are the trade off imo and do not make either system better. I just prefer decentralization if I'm holding capital on a blockchain for an extended period of time.
It also would be a fair comparison to compare what is existing today. So, please don't say that Ethereum 2.0 will be far more efficient. By that time Solana would have made great strides too. So, let's compare what is existing today. Ethereum 2.0 is being touted for several years and still not ready. We can compare Ethereum 2.0, when it's ready and there, but not now.
The problem with this you can't yourself verify what is happening on the chain, you have to trust that the node operators are acting in good faith and not censoring transactions or forming cartels to manipulate history.
This is ok if you only have a small amount of money or are using it for games or something that doesn't really matter. But it'll never be able to run the global financial system or store things of large value.
If most Solana validators run on AWS, then it is as centralized as the AWS datacenters. I think they have 50+ facilities now.
There is only one metric that matters and that's users on your platform. I like Solana and am somewhat neutral on Avalanche but they just dno't have the users, or developers or ecosystem that Eth has.
If they were truly better then they'd be winning. So far the users have voted with their dollars and developers have voted with their time and claimed Eth is better.
I hold alot of SOL, but atleast ETH is decentralized. SOL is very much centralized both in terms of ownership and in terms of nodes.
I mean, they managed to get all nodes to shutdown in a coordinated manner a month ago. I was fine shutting my node down but it was strange that all node owners could get together in a discord group and make that decisions in under an hour.
Solana is ok for now if you don't care about decentralization, but it barely handles more than a few thousand TPS without falling over or having degraded performance (as has happened twice in the last week!), and it can't scale much further with it's current structure.
A rollup centric system can scale to 14 million TPS by 2030 once a few core pieces of tech are released (see https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-da...) on similar hardware to what Ethereum is running today (raspberry Pi's of 2030)
Avalanche does seem promising. I like their concept of multiple chains: Exchange Chain (X-Chain), Platform Chain (P-Chain), and Contract Chain (C-Chain) [1].
[1] https://docs.avax.network/learn/platform-overview/README/
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/09/17/scalability-part-1-buil...
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/10/21/scalability-part-2-hype...
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/13/scalability-part-3-meta...
And here's one of his 2021 posts, in which he talks about the importance of regular users being able to run a node, but says a million tx/sec should be achievable:
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
300% more is usually considered a good upgrade for most things (Apple is touting a whopping 20% speed increase on their latest iPad, for example). It's just that six years is a long time in this space and they've learned how to make things a lot faster since.
Over time this will all be abstracted away and typical users won't have to worry how it's all working underneath (unless they really want to).
Given that being the case, the general decentralization argument would be pointless. For the many users who need to be able to pay for their groceries quickly, you might as well use Solana then, since everyone needs to eat.
The whole point of Uniswap is to move away from these centralized exchanges. Perhaps using that has gotten more complicated to use or the swaps have also gotten too expensive even if it is on an L2; making that useless as well?
It's also quite easy to integrate with webapps.
Someone else can do that and then sell you the L2 token directly.
We're still very much in the early days of this though, having to move between chains manually. There are bridges that allow executing contracts on other networks, and eventually apps will abstract the different layers away from users using technology like this.
Count me among those not in the know!
I...really don't get it.
Bitcoin was supposed to be a currency. Then we realized that it's too slow and too energy-hungry for that. So we retcon'ed it into, it's a store of value!
Etherium was supposed to be a place for smart contracts. Then we realized it's too slow and gas-hungry for that. So...we retcon'ed it, too?
With optimistic rollups, there's a withdrawal delay so people have an opportunity to submit proof of fraud.
I'm old enough to remember it was always called "currency".
It seems it would be like if I compared the price of gasoline ($3.80/gallon here) to the price of water ($0.00018/gallon if I use a lot, 25% less if I use an ordinary amount) and said this shows that gasoline is way overpriced because they are both liquids.
that's ... not exactly an endorsement.
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/981090555697405952
Is there is source where Vitalik states this? Is this was the case then why bother creating Eth2?
Also here's a more recent tweet from him in July 2020 that says the high gas fees are risking making Ethereum even LESS secure[2].
Also here's his response to someone mentioning his initial quote about 5 cents per transaction and accusing Vitalik that he has since become more accepting of higher transaction fees:
"Wait what? Why do you think half the ecosystem is working nonstop on rollups and eth2?"[3]
I think it's safe to assume that Vitalik does not share the opinion of the linked article that Ethereum is intended to have high fees or that it helps security by having those high fees.
[1]: https://youtu.be/unMnAVAGIp0
[2]: https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/128559311567235891...
[3]: https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/129789601746812928...
ETH2 is where Ethereum goes from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake and as a result uses 99% less electricity.
The second phase of ETH2 is sharding where instead of Ethereum being one big chain it has one execution chain and 64 additional data shards. This makes it scale incredibly well when it's a settlement layer for rollups (up to 14 million TPS with 1024 shards - See https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-da...)
The researchers have floated the possibility of incorporating zkrollup tech into L1 eventually, but with the tech advancing so quickly it's hard to say whether it will ultimately make sense.